On 12/06/2000 09:23:58 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote: >James Kass said: [snip] >> Consider the "teeth" ideograph(s). (Radical number 211, in >> some radical lists.) Because this is a radical, CJK encoders >> can select the specific desired character: >> U+2FD2 for Traditional Chinese >> U+2EED for Japanese >> U+2EEE for Simplified Chinese > >Uh oh! This is one of the dangers of these dang radicals. >First of all, the radicals are *not* intended to be used as >regular ideographic characters. That is why they all have the "So" >property, rather than "Lo". So if you go around recommending their >usage *instead* of the unified character for regular text, you >can end up with some strange behavior. > >Note that the entire Kangxi radical set, U+2F00..U+2FD5, are >duplicate symbols for the radicals that *are* encoded as unified >characters in the main set. Effectively, they are all compatibility >characters. They are not just effectively compatibility characters. They are, in fact, compatibility characters. And in this case, it sounds like most people should *not* be using them. So, they're like the Arabic presentation forms, in this regard - we'd be better off if in general people don't use them. But what about all the other compatibility characters? When should or shouldn't I consider using them? Should we avoid using U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE because it's a compatibility character? U+0E33 THAI CHARACTER SARA AM is a compatibility character, but I believe it is used quite regularly. How do I know what recommendation I should give users as to whether or not to encode texts using U+0EDC LAO HO NO and U+0EDD LAO HO MO? I've been thinking about this in relation to phonetic transcriptions for linguists: the IPA handbook suggests the use of some superscript characters, but these are compatibility characters. Is that a good idea, or not? One problem I see for implementers is not knowing which compatibility characters are good to use in general and which are not. We have heard on many occasions that every character has a story. The compatibility characters desperately need to have their stories told so that people will know what to do with them. Otherwise, we will inevitably end up with cases where people are encouraged to use characters when it would be better that they didn't. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
